On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 14:09:00 -0600 > Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:04 PM >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mount.cifs: remove support for "complex" >> usernames from mount.cifs >> To: Scott Lovenberg <scott.lovenberg@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> On Jan 4, 2013 12:26 PM, "Scott Lovenberg" <scott.lovenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > I am not as worried about code cleanliness as I am about losing function, >> > > especially as it is sometimes hard to figure out how many users would be >> > > affected by removing function. I mildly prefer leaving the nfs syntax >> > > if it makes it easier for nfs users to use smb3, but we could make a stub >> > > mount helper that parses nfs syntax and simply calls mount.cifs if you >> > > prefer that approach - in any case I don't feel strongly about nfs syntax. >> > >> > I don't care much either way. The reason behind removing it, IIRC, >> > was that it was an undocumented feature that lead to an ambiguous >> > parsing situation when you had NFS syntax with an IPv6 address as the >> > server portion of the string (ie >> > dead:beef::1:/shareNameWithColon:/prepath). It was easier to remove >> > the undocumented feature than to support it for this use case. >> > >> > How does NFS syntax make things easier for SMB3? >> >> UNC names may be unfamiliar for some NFS users. Smb3 has many >> performance advantages and other features that may eventually be of >> strong interest to some Linux NFS users >> >> > > Not exactly what I'd call a "killer use case"... ;) > > If they want the features of SMB3, I doubt that UNC device strings will > be a great hurdle for them. This isn't NFS after all, so we shouldn't > go to great lengths to pretend that it is. OTOH, maintaining these > sorts of features is a burden. > > I'm all for bugfixes and features that offer a concrete benefit. I just > don't see one in this case. Sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but how does the nfs-utils mount helper deal with parsing IPv6 addresses when using NFS syntax? Does it just search for ":/" and assume that's the beginning of the share name (which 99.99999% of the time it will be)? -- Peace and Blessings, -Scott. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
